NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the premise of the SAW movies, is that Jigsaw is not an actual murderer, since he never actually killed anyone directly. However, I have a question about this. Since Jigsaw does put people in situations where they either escape his traps, or die trying. Wouldn't the fact that he puts them in these situations make him a murderer?

Short answer yes. Long answer, wait for the NSG 'lawyers' to show up.

If direct actions were a strict stipulation for conviction as a murderer, then the Nurnburg Trials would have been a complete failure.

If direct actions were a strict stipulation for conviction as a murderer, then the Nurnburg Trials would have been a complete failure.

This is what I am talking about.

Whenever I hear people talk about this, it makes me want to stab them, brutally. Then accuse them of failing to avoid my thrusting knife, and therefore being guilty of their own predicament.

It really goes back to law stuffs. You have to have all the elements and stuffs.

Who cares if he's a murderer? He has obviously found the cure for cancer or he would have croaked long ago! He is a hero!
:tongue:

Who cares if he's a murderer? He has obviously found the cure for cancer or he would have croaked long ago! He is a hero!
:tongue:

Umm....he actually died in SAW III.

Umm....he actually died in SAW III.

Not from cancer! :D

Not from cancer! :D

True, but if the doctor haven't performed the back-alley surgery on him, he would've died of Brain hemorrhaging.

Well, myself personally, I have long advocated the release of Charles Manson from jail since he never killed anyone either. But I can see where that argument would go, so I tend not to think about this too hard.

Well, myself personally, I have long advocated the release of Charles Manson from jail since he never killed anyone either. But I can see where that argument would go, so I tend not to think about this too hard.

Give him a Beatles record and a plane ticket to the Middle East. Fixes everything!
:tongue:

Give him a Beatles record and a plane ticket to the Middle East. Fixes everything!
:tongue:

Lol. It has the same amount of merit as other solutions. :tongue:

Yes, he would be a murderer. He willfully and deliberately put them into situations where they had a very high probability of dying, knowing full well that they were more than likely not to survive. He killed them as sure as if he held a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger.

i think willfully causing someone to die, or to create a situation intentionally where they have a high probability of doing so, for the intended purpose of their doing so, i think that pretty much quallifies as killing someone, even without personally admistering the coup de gras. intent here is the key.

afaik - and I'm sure the NS lawyers will verify or dismiss - you can be tried for murder even if you are forced into committing it. Say for instance, if the nasty man told you if you didn't kill that person over there, they would kill you and your loved ones.
Even if they had a loaded and cocked gun to your head while you pulled the trigger, it's still murder on your part - and theirs. Mitigating circumstances would obviously come into play regards your sentencing, but you would be tried for murder.

*waits for some NS lawyer to come in and tells me not to ever comment on law again as I obviously know diddly squat*

If you hire an assassin to kill someone, you are as responsible for the murder as the hired killer. If you plant a booby-trapped bomb you are responsible for murdering anyone killed by it.

*Casts summon Neo Art and/or Neesika*

Yes. If I throw you in a cage with a bunch of starving lions, am I a murderer?

If you have felonious intent (even if not "the intent to commit murder"), and a death results, that's murder.
I am oversimplifying, of course, to make it a one-line answer.

Yes. If I throw you in a cage with a bunch of starving lions, am I a murderer?

No, you're a zoo keeper.

Short answer: yes.

Slightly longer answer (quoted from wikipedia): "At base, murder consists of an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences. Generally, an intention to cause great bodily harm is considered indistinguishable from an intention to kill, as is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality. Thus, if the defendant hurled the victim from a bridge, it is no defense to argue that harm was not contemplated, or that the defendant hoped only to break bones."

Typically, murder is intentionally or knowingly causing the death of an individual. Jigsaw's conduct counts; I don't know of any definition of causation under which he wouldn't be considered a cause of those deaths.

Murder - Trying to get up for work in the morning.

*Casts summon Neo Art and/or Neesika*

make it the complete triumverate...

Neo Art, Neesika, and The-Cat-Tribe

One of the premise of the SAW movies, is that Jigsaw is not an actual murderer, since he never actually killed anyone directly. However, I have a question about this. Since Jigsaw does put people in situations where they either escape his traps, or die trying. Wouldn't the fact that he puts them in these situations make him a murderer?

um.....yes. Yes it would.

make it the complete triuverate...

Neo Art, Neesika, and The-Cat-Tribe

huh, what, where? I'm awake....I'm awake.

OK, long answer, murder is under common law defined as a killing of another person with "malice aforethought".

Which essentially means two things. First is killing with intent. Now, ok, you can argue he didn't intend to KILL THEM, merely intended to place them in a situation in which death was highly likely. That speaks to the second element, killing with a "depraved and malignant heart" as the saying goes. Not killing with intent, but causing death as a result of your extremely reckless conduct. Direct consciousness of the extreme risk to human life caused by your actions, and an abandonment of any will or desire to prevent it.

In that, the definition fits perfectly. Creating intentional "death traps" and then placing people in them, even if you don't INTEND for them to die, is an example of a "depraved and malignant heart", a conscious awareness of the risk you have created.

The third option is, also, the felony murder rule, meaning, any death caused as a result of your commission of a felony makes you guilty of murder. Almost universal within the felony murder rule list of applicable felonies, is kidnapping. Since the very nature of this premise is that his victims are not free to leave, they are essentially kidnapped. If a death occurs as a result of said kidnapping (it does) it's murder.

As for the definition of kidnapping, legally it means only to constrain or limit ones movement from a particular area, without a means of exit that is not hidden or dangerous. If the only way out of his "traps" are exceedingly dangerous ones, by placing someone in the trap, he has kidnapped them. If someone dies as a result of said kidnapping, it's murder.

Case closed.

um.....yes. Yes it would.

Yup. In the US. And Canada. And Sweden.

Might even be that way in Botswana. Not sure about Palau though. Possibly in Iran. Definitively in the UK. China, I don't know at all...

huh, what, where? I'm awake....I'm awake.

OK, long answer, murder is under common law defined as a killing of another person with "malice aforethought".

Which essentially means two things. First is killing with intent. Now, ok, you can argue he didn't intend to KILL THEM, merely intended to place them in a situation in which death was highly likely. That speaks to the second element, killing with a "depraved and malignant heart" as the saying goes. Not killing with intent, but causing death as a result of your extremely reckless conduct. Direct consciousness of the extreme risk to human life caused by your actions, and an abandonment of any will or desire to prevent it.

In that, the definition fits perfectly. Creating intentional "death traps" and then placing people in them, even if you don't INTEND for them to die, is an example of a "depraved and malignant heart", a conscious awareness of the risk you have created.

The third option is, also, the felony murder rule, meaning, any death caused as a result of your commission of a felony makes you guilty of murder. Almost universal within the felony murder rule list of applicable felonies, is kidnapping. Since the very nature of this premise is that his victims are not free to leave, they are essentially kidnapped. If a death occurs as a result of said kidnapping (it does) it's murder.

As for the definition of kidnapping, legally it means only to constrain or limit ones movement from a particular area, without a means of exit that is not hidden or dangerous. If the only way out of his "traps" are exceedingly dangerous ones, by placing someone in the trap, he has kidnapped them. If someone dies as a result of said kidnapping, it's murder.


interesting... and I must be learning something since I understood most of that. :tongue:

make it the complete triumverate...

Neo Art, Neesika, and The-Cat-Tribe

Damn lawyers always hanging around, having nothing better to do than posting on NSG from their respective Gentlemen's clubs! :p

Here's a question.

following the SAW premise... kidnapped victim A and B find themselves in a deathtrap. Victim A ends up killing Victim B in order to get out.

now even if the threat to them (as I understand it, there is some threat to force them to try to escape like the room is filling with poison gas or something) is real... would victim A be guilty of killing B and thus be held accountable? what if the threat to both of them were not real... (the canister of poison gas is empty, the timer is not hooked up to any bomb, etc...)

Yup. In the US. And Canada. And Sweden.

Might even be that way in Botswana. Not sure about Palau though. Possibly in Iran. Definitively in the UK. China, I don't know at all...
Whereas in Norway creating death traps of that sort is a national past time. It's a little known bit of trivia that Jigsaw had a Norwegian grandfather who was a master of the art.
Here's a question.

following the SAW premise... kidnapped victim A and B find themselves in a deathtrap. Victim A ends up killing Victim B in order to get out.

now even if the threat to them (as I understand it, there is some threat to force them to try to escape like the room is filling with poison gas or something) is real... would victim A be guilty of killing B and thus be held accountable? what if the threat to both of them were not real... (the canister of poison gas is empty, the timer is not hooked up to any bomb, etc...)

Someone mentioned that it's murder even if you've got a gun to your head, I think. If they're right, then it would be murder.

huh, what, where? I'm awake....I'm awake.

OK, long answer, murder is under common law defined as a killing of another person with "malice aforethought".

Which essentially means two things. First is killing with intent. Now, ok, you can argue he didn't intend to KILL THEM, merely intended to place them in a situation in which death was highly likely. That speaks to the second element, killing with a "depraved and malignant heart" as the saying goes. Not killing with intent, but causing death as a result of your extremely reckless conduct. Direct consciousness of the extreme risk to human life caused by your actions, and an abandonment of any will or desire to prevent it.

In that, the definition fits perfectly. Creating intentional "death traps" and then placing people in them, even if you don't INTEND for them to die, is an example of a "depraved and malignant heart", a conscious awareness of the risk you have created.

The third option is, also, the felony murder rule, meaning, any death caused as a result of your commission of a felony makes you guilty of murder. Almost universal within the felony murder rule list of applicable felonies, is kidnapping. Since the very nature of this premise is that his victims are not free to leave, they are essentially kidnapped. If a death occurs as a result of said kidnapping (it does) it's murder.

As for the definition of kidnapping, legally it means only to constrain or limit ones movement from a particular area, without a means of exit that is not hidden or dangerous. If the only way out of his "traps" are exceedingly dangerous ones, by placing someone in the trap, he has kidnapped them. If someone dies as a result of said kidnapping, it's murder.
You forgot one thing Neo, at common law they have to die within 1 year and 1 day of the Kidnapping (to use your example) for it to be murder. If I put you in a coma for 2 years and then you die, it is not murder under the common law rule.

As to kidnapping, that requires asportation. Mere confinement w/o means of exit is false imprisonment.

huh, what, where? I'm awake....I'm awake.

OK, long answer, murder is under common law defined as a killing of another person with "malice aforethought".

Which essentially means two things. First is killing with intent. Now, ok, you can argue he didn't intend to KILL THEM, merely intended to place them in a situation in which death was highly likely. That speaks to the second element, killing with a "depraved and malignant heart" as the saying goes. Not killing with intent, but causing death as a result of your extremely reckless conduct. Direct consciousness of the extreme risk to human life caused by your actions, and an abandonment of any will or desire to prevent it.

In that, the definition fits perfectly. Creating intentional "death traps" and then placing people in them, even if you don't INTEND for them to die, is an example of a "depraved and malignant heart", a conscious awareness of the risk you have created.

The third option is, also, the felony murder rule, meaning, any death caused as a result of your commission of a felony makes you guilty of murder. Almost universal within the felony murder rule list of applicable felonies, is kidnapping. Since the very nature of this premise is that his victims are not free to leave, they are essentially kidnapped. If a death occurs as a result of said kidnapping (it does) it's murder.

As for the definition of kidnapping, legally it means only to constrain or limit ones movement from a particular area, without a means of exit that is not hidden or dangerous. If the only way out of his "traps" are exceedingly dangerous ones, by placing someone in the trap, he has kidnapped them. If someone dies as a result of said kidnapping, it's murder.

Ahh k. Well I doubt Jigsaw intended for them to die. At least not John Kramer. Amanda (who was John's first apprentice) did build traps that were "un-winnable". That's why in SAW III, John put Amanda in her own game, a game to keep someone else alive, she failed and died herself.

Someone mentioned that it's murder even if you've got a gun to your head, I think. If they're right, then it would be murder.

I don't think it's right. I can really only speak on Texas law (and even then not authoritatively), but this is a case in which I'm pretty sure the law is similar most places. In Texas, it's an affirmative defense (to be proven by the defendant) that you're compelled to do something (in this case kill someone) by the threat of imminent death or severe bodily injury.

As to kidnapping, that requires asportation. Mere confinement w/o means of exit is false imprisonment.

well, the implication therein was that he placed them in that trap

I don't think it's right. I can really only speak on Texas law (and even then not authoritatively), but this is a case in which I'm pretty sure the law is similar most places. In Texas, it's an affirmative defense (to be proven by the defendant) that you're compelled to do something (in this case kill someone) by the threat of imminent death or severe bodily injury.

"compelled to do something by threat of imminent death or severe bodily injury" is the defense of duress.

Typically duress is not a defense to murder. I can't speak for Texas law, but traditionally, murder is the one crime where one can not claim duress

"compelled to do something by threat of imminent death or severe bodily injury" is the defense of duress.

Typically duress is not a defense to murder.

Maybe this is a Texas peculiarity... or then again, maybe I'm just missing something. I can't find anything denying it as a defense to murder, or a harm-threatened-greater-than-harm-caused requirement. Is there something else I should know about?

Not asking you to go dig through an unfamiliar penal code, mind you. But if there's a simple answer I'm interested to hear it. :)

Ahh k. Well I doubt Jigsaw intended for them to die. At least not John Kramer. Amanda (who was John's first apprentice) did build traps that were "un-winnable". That's why in SAW III, John put Amanda in her own game, a game to keep someone else alive, she failed and died herself.

You get far too much pleasure from this series.

And in Denmark, the first part wouldn't matter because Jigsaw would have thought it likely that death would occur. In Germany too, I suspect...

Whereas in Norway creating death traps of that sort is a national past time. It's a little known bit of trivia that Jigsaw had a Norwegian grandfather who was a master of the art.

Crazy vikings.

As to kidnapping, that requires asportation. Mere confinement w/o means of exit is false imprisonment.
At least in the first one, the characters were both abducted and knocked unconscious before being placed in the basement. I certainly doubt that most people voluntarily enter basements filled with barbed wire or shitty houses with needle pits.

Crazy vikings.

Oh yes. Odd bunch of fellows, those vikings.




*stomps and sings*

Oh yes. Odd bunch of fellows, those vikings.




*stomps and sings*

:tongue:

*Pillages a little* :fluffle:

You get far too much pleasure from this series.

And in Denmark, the first part wouldn't matter because Jigsaw would have thought it likely that death would occur. In Germany too, I suspect...

Hey, if he intended them to die, then why did he disapprove of Amanda's un-winnable traps?

Jigsaw: [after Amanda gets shot] Amanda... It's OK. This was your test. Your game. I was testing you. I took you in. I selected you for the honor of carrying on my life's work. But you didn't. You didn't test anyone's will to live. Instead you took away their only chance. Your games were unwinnable, your subjects merely victims. In my desperation I decided to give you one last chance. So I put everything in place. You didn't know that Lynn and Jeff were husband and wife. I had to keep that from you for the purposes of my game. I had to leave out the ruined marriage, the cheating wife, the vengeful husband, the neglected daughter and I let you make your own choices. I wanted you to succeed... You couldn't.
[Amanda begins to collapse and die]
Jigsaw: God...
[Amanda finally dies]
Jigsaw: Game over.

Hey, if he intended them to die, then why did he disapprove of Amanda's un-winnable traps?
Because he was a self-righteous, irrational asshole with a chip on his shoulder? Anyone who thinks they have the right to "test people's will to live" by making them cut off their own leg is obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Hey, if he intended them to die, then why did he disapprove of Amanda's un-winnable traps?

To repeat myself: It wouldn't matter whether or not he intended them to die because Jigsaw would have thought it likely that death would occur. That would be sufficient to convict.

Hey, if he intended them to die, then why did he disapprove of Amanda's un-winnable traps?

Same reason why hunters don't use grenades. Same reason why Zaroff let people live if they survived three days.

Hey, if he intended them to die, then why did he disapprove of Amanda's un-winnable traps?

I'm not sure why you ask these questions if you are going to ignore the answers you receive. Your questions have been answered at length by Neo Art, Ifreann, and many others. Your refusal to accept those answers is your own problem.

Nonetheless, as Neo tried to explain, it is murder if you cause the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Whether you understood that or not, you are making a weak argument that Jigsaw lacked malice, because he didn't intend his victims to die. Assuming this is arguable, Neo already explained that malice isn't limited to an intent to kill:
[4] "Malice" – As the term has developed, a person kills another acts with the requisite "malice" if he possesses any one of four states of mind:
1.) the intention to kill a human being;
2.) the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another;
3.) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life; or
4.) the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results. link (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm)

Even if you could succesfully argue that Jigsaw lacked the intent to kill, he obviously intended to inflict grevious bodily harm on another. And, even if he didn't intend that, he showed a reckless disregard for the value of human life.

That is in addition to application of the felony murder rule, which I agree with others here in saying it would apply.

Neo already explained that malice isn't limited to an intent to kill:
[4] "Malice" – As the term has developed, a person kills another acts with the requisite "malice" if he possesses any one of four states of mind:
1.) the intention to kill a human being;
2.) the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another;
3.) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life; or
4.) the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death results. link (http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm)

Even if you could succesfully argue that Jigsaw lacked the intent to kill, he obviously intended to inflict grevious bodily harm on another. And, even if he didn't intend that, he showed a reckless disregard for the value of human life.
.

I left out definition #2 as I wasn't sure if it applied. From my understanding (never saw the movies) the traps were intended to be fatal, IE either you made it out unscathed, or you died. As such I don't know if there was INTENT to cause harm AT ALL.

Definitions #3 and #4 fit as you and I both note.

I left out definition #2 as I wasn't sure if it applied. From my understanding (never saw the movies) the traps were intended to be fatal, IE either you made it out unscathed, or you died. As such I don't know if there was INTENT to cause harm AT ALL.

Definitions #3 and #4 fit as you and I both note.

I admit to limited knowledge about these great works of cinema, but I know in the original Saw the traps included chains and hacksaws. The hacksaws were insufficient to cut the chains and were intended to be used on the legs of the victims.

Any trap like that would include an intent to cause grevious bodily harm.

Because he was a self-righteous, irrational asshole with a chip on his shoulder?

Ah, like some of the more infamous regulars of NSG. The comparison doesn't stop there, because horror movies and internet forums alike are quite capable of making you feel nauseous...

I left out definition #2 as I wasn't sure if it applied. From my understanding (never saw the movies) the traps were intended to be fatal, IE either you made it out unscathed, or you died. As such I don't know if there was INTENT to cause harm AT ALL.

Definitions #3 and #4 fit as you and I both note.

I've only seen the first one, but IMS some of the traps involve harming yourself quite a bit to escape(sawing off one's foot, climbing through barbed wire).

And of course he had to knock the people out to get them in the traps anyway. Though that may not count as grievous. I'm not even almost a lawyer. I know someone studying law, but that's about it.

I'm not even almost a lawyer. I know someone studying law, but that's about it.

You're often drunk, so you qualify as a lawyer anyway. ;)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

The internet is our friend.

The internet is our friend.

Friend, smut-peddler, what's the difference?

Friend, smut-peddler, what's the difference?
If you're finding smut in a legal definition of murder, you either need to up the dosage, or reduce it.

If you're finding smut in a legal definition of murder, you either need to up the dosage, or reduce it.

*was referring to the wide-spread usage of the internet for porn*

*was referring to the wide-spread usage of the internet for porn*
There's porn on the internet?! Why wasn't I told?!

There's porn on the internet?! Why wasn't I told?!

You weren't told because God hates you.

The internet is our friend.

It's not my friend. :(

It's not my friend. :(
Maybe if you shared your toys... played nicely... invited it over for dinner?

Maybe if you shared your toys... played nicely... invited it over for dinner?

I did invite it over, but I think it's put off by the bodies.

I did invite it over, but I think it's put off by the bodies.
That would be off-putting....

You weren't told because God hates you.
ohhhh....how many times must I be thwarted by that damn Gog guy? He's always messing things up for me. Hiding my keys, stealing my mail, losing me my g/f, and now I find out he's been blocking my interwebs!
In hindsight I should never have stolen his parking space that time.

That would be off-putting....

Not corpses, silly. International bodies. I regularly host UN and OSCE meetings.

Not corpses, silly. International bodies. I regularly host UN and OSCE meetings.

Much worse, you monster!

If you're finding smut in a legal definition of murder, you either need to up the dosage, or reduce it.

either that or learn how to spell. :p

Whenever I hear people talk about this, it makes me want to stab them, brutally. Then accuse them of failing to avoid my thrusting knife, and therefore being guilty of their own predicament.
But officer, it was an accident, I was merely cleaning my knife when it went off.......40 times.

"Seems there was a little controversy there regarding your father's death."
"Yes, the police said he fell down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets."
"You know, I've always suspected a bit of foul play there."
"As have I."